In the post below, Tattoos, another statement is made in the referenced article that should be examined more carefully:
But at the end of the day, having a tattoo does not impact one’s salvation. As always, salvation is a matter of Christ’s work on our behalf. The verse that comes to mind for the question of Tattoos is one that comes to mind for a lot of similar issues, “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. All things are permissible, but not all things build up.” (1 Cor 10:23)
Is the pastor’s point correct?
When St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 that all things are permissible or lawful, is he saying that these things Do Not Impact a person’s salvation?
In the verses that immediately precede this verse St. Paul says:
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10:18-22)
While the pastor rightly says that salvation is a matter of Christ’s work on our behalf, does this mean that the choices that we make in our lives Do Not Impact a person’s salvation? Does this match what St. Paul says of the Holy Communion?
In this pastor’s admonition to the inquirer concerning tattoos, he applies 1 Corinthians 10:23 as though it applies only to the issue of how we act regarding the weak in matters of adiaphora, things of indifference.
But what made the thing that St. Paul specifically addresses in this passage a thing of indifference? St. Paul addressed the purchasing of meat in the marketplace that came from pagan sacrifices. This meat came from animals that the pagans had slaughtered as sacrifices to their false gods, and the leftovers were sold in the marketplace. To those who purchased it without thought to the false gods, it was just another piece of meat.
However, for some of the newborn Christians, this would be perceived as partaking of the sacrifice to the false gods. Since many of these new converts had previously worshiped these false gods, this would be a terrible stumbling block for them. Those who were not recent converts would not be troubled by this for themselves and could purchase and eat this meat without a troubled conscience. But for those who were weak so that their consciences were troubled, such an action would be sinful to them for they would be acting not from faith but with doubting. This would indeed Impact their salvation. On this St. Paul writes to the Roman saints:
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23)
If a person does something that the person fears may be wrong, the person is acting contrary to faith. By this, even if the action is not actually in itself sinful, acting in this way the person acts in opposition to faith.
Does the merit of Christ cover or remit such sin? Yes, most certainly it does. However, is a person who acts in opposition to faith relying upon this remission or turning away from it to something else?
Thus we need to be very careful in all matters. We need to be continually partaking of the pure means of grace so that we rest in the assurance of receiving the merit of Christ and resting securely in the remission of sins that He purchased for us. If this is where our hearts are secured, we won’t even trouble ourselves with questions over whether or not to cover ourselves with questionable tattoos and the like. Rather, we will be rejoicing in our baptismal grace and identity and doing the things that naturally flow from them. In such a mindset there is no question of what is good and salutary.
For those who have tattoos, they should not be judged by others on account of them. Rather, they should be embraced according to their identity in Christ that they received in their baptism. But for those who are contemplating tattoos, pastors should direct them to the means of grace where the saints hear themselves proclaimed God’s holy and beloved children, recreated into the image of God. With this as their mindset, who will even entertain marking themselves with anything else?
+ + +
13 comments:
No offense, but I really do find it a bit humorous when people try to apply centuries old documents to modern moral choices.
Should I buy this car?
Let's check in with Macbeth to see if I can find the answer to this age-old question. Maybe I should check the Iliad while I'm at it.
It just seems sort of silly. Is a Tattoo that big a deal?
Of course, Christianity has several different sects attached to it, so even people with the same book interpret it differently.
Dear Canadian,
It is good to hear from you. It is sad to me, though, that you feel that you need to go on the offensive against me.
You really should consider that beginning with “No offense” does not nullify the offensive action. In fact, if you feel compelled to say or write, “No offense,” you may want to reconsider your motives before you comment.
Please remember when you read a post such as this one, that I am not writing with you in mind. I wrote this for those who do profess to believe in the Lord, with whom they also profess to be in a living relationship.
My points regarding the issue of tattoos is with regard to this relationship and how people’s struggles affect this relationship. Since faith and trust are the foundation of this relationship, anything that a Christian thinks, says, or does that is not thus grounded is deleterious.
If you consider your statement more cautiously, you will see that it is not based on clear thinking but upon your antagonism toward anything that relates to faith in God. Do you really believe that modern moral choices are different from ancient ones?
Is this really even what you are addressing? No. What you are attacking is the notion that morality can or should flow from a relationship with God.
Since you reject even the existence of God, you cannot allow this notion to stand. You have made yourself an enemy of this notion, and so you react aggressively. That is certainly to be expected, since you hate reliance upon God and especially hate the evils that you have observed from the vast majority of those who claim to believe in God and the Bible and other claims of God’s revelation.
Nevertheless, you act quite disrespectfully to me when you use a play as an equal standard with the Bible. This is most certainly a deliberate offense by you. You really should not kid yourself about this.
Regarding tattoos, they really can be a very big deal. They are a serious health risk. The American Red Cross will not even accept a blood donation from someone who has recently received a tattoo.
To a Christian, taking such an unnecessary health risk is to tempt the Lord. Someone who fears, loves, and trusts in God will not desire to act in such a way toward God.
Moreover, a tattoo is almost always if not always a sign of devotion to something. Devotion and adoration of something that leads a person to cut and alter one’s body is idolatry, blasphemy, and false worship. So for a Christian, this is a very big deal. One who calls God “Our Father” will not want to act in a way that displeases or mocks Him.
As I said, this is a relationship issue. That is what faith is. Faith is the relationship of love and trust and honor toward God. It flows from the reliance upon His merciful love toward us. Thus, in my writing for those who desire to understand this rightly, I warn against those things that would harm and destroy this relationship.
You mockingly present the question: “Should I buy this car?” as if no moral thought would ever be associated with such a choice.
If the purchase of the car by a father would leave the family without funds for food and shelter, this is very definitely a moral question. If purchasing the car is done illicitly, with ill gotten funds, it is a moral issue. Many factors in the purchase of a car are moral matters.
As for what the Bible teaches in these matters, it gives very clear direction to one’s conscience, direction away from selfish and thoughtless action to compassionate and loving and responsible thoughts, words, and actions, direction that flows from knowing God is love. One who is bound to this relationship is motivated by it.
This is why the apostles speak of the disciples of Jesus as douloi or slaves. The term has bondage as its root. Through baptism one is bound to Jesus through faith. This relationship binds the person to Jesus so that the believer is a new person who is one with Jesus.
. . .
The term Christian was dubbed by those who observed this in the believers so that the world very quickly began to know those who professed to be disciples of Jesus or the Way as Christians. The term is used only three times in the Bible and each time it is a term applied to Christians by outsiders. To an outsider the term has a vague definition so that the various sects are all counted as one, as you say: “Of course, Christianity has several different sects attached to it, so even people with the same book interpret it differently.” But there is only one Way and one Truth and one Life. As St. Paul lovingly teaches, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)
Sadly, very few believe this and so even among those professing to be Christians what is embraced is the mess that you rightly observe. When I write, my desire is to direct Christians to the one true faith that unites the true saints as the one holy catholic Church in the grace, mercy, and peace of God in Christ Jesus.
Since you are at enmity with God you oppose His revealed doctrine and Church and refuse to acknowledge it for what it really is. You will never understand Christianity as long as you refuse to allow it to be defined by its own standard. As long as you view Christianity through your own hatred for it, all that you will see is your own hatred and not the love of God in Christ.
Faith is the “proof” that you offensively deny. This Faith is the result of knowing God’s love which overturns unbelief in hearts so that it is no longer resisted but embraced.
It is not in my power to convince you of what you adamantly deny and reject. I can only show it and declare it openly and pray that you see it.
God’s peace to you and to all.
Dear NA,
My comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful. However, I do believe morals were different 1000+ years ago, than they are now.
For example, the Bible offers instructions on how to treat a slave. Today, most people see slavery as being wrong. For years slavery was considered okay.
The people who wrote the Bible struggled with morals. But it was a very different world back then. Cultures were different. To try an recreate these cultural norms in todays world is absurd.
Honestly, the average 6th grader today has more access to information and has probably traveled further than the average elder did in his entire life back then.
If you were to transport them here today, they would take one look at your house, car etc and think YOU were a God.
Medicine was just beginning. They still thought demons were the cause. They would drown witches, drill holes in the skull to let out demons and if you suffered from what we know as a mental disorder back then, you were thought to be the spawn of Satan.
You wrote: "It is not in my power to convince you of what you adamantly deny and reject. I can only show it and declare it openly and pray that you see it."
It is not a rejection. It's a lack of belief, similar to your lack of belief in Zeus. This is a common mistake made by believers. You are essentially an atheist when it comes to Odin or Zeus, probably for similar reasons that I don't believe in your God. I would not presume to say you reject Zeus. You see a lack of evidence and probably have very good reasons for not believing. I just stay consistent and apply those same reasons to your God.
You said: "You will never understand Christianity as long as you refuse to allow it to be defined by its own standard. As long as you view Christianity through your own hatred for it, all that you will see is your own hatred and not the love of God in Christ."
You make the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that I hate Christianity. That isn't true. I was brought up as a Christian. I can honestly say I enjoyed going to church as a child and still visit one from time-to-time.
You said: "Please remember when you read a post such as this one, that I am not writing with you in mind. I wrote this for those who do profess to believe in the Lord, with whom they also profess to be in a living relationship."
I understand that. Yours isn't the only religious blog I visit. However, the internet is a big place and sometimes people will disagree with you.
Surely you don't want an echo chamber, do you?
Do you mind if I read and comment on your entries?
Dear Canadian,
I don’t believe that I have indicated in any way any call for you to stop commenting. I did, after all, say that it was good to hear from you.
As for your comments about Zeus and Odin, I most certainly do REJECT them. I do not necessarily reject their existence, as I expect that they may actually have been demons claiming to be gods. But I do not believe in them in the way that I believe in God. I do not fear, love, and trust in them. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I have encountered demons. We all have, but they do not always make themselves known as such, especially not among people who already rely upon medicine and technology and their own reason and such as their gods.
You said: “You make the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that I hate Christianity. That isn't true. I was brought up as a Christian. I can honestly say I enjoyed going to church as a child and still visit one from time-to-time.”
Visiting a church from time to time does not negate your hatred for Christianity. People hold nostalgic sentiments for many childhood and past situations for which they have good memories even though they despise the group or setting in which these memories were made. You openly speak against the Christian faith and especially the God of the Christian faith. You have written of such hatred for this God that you have even devised scenarios in which you say that you would viciously kill this God.
My friend, it is not a mistake to quote you and to accept what you say as what you mean.
People have three primary sentiments regarding relationships: love/like/adoration, indifference, and hatred/dislike/rejection.
People do not attack and condemn and counter what they love, nor that to which they hold indifference. You exert an enormous amount of energy countering and even attacking and condemning the Bible, the God of the Bible, and Christians. The fact that you allow that certain good things are connected with these does not negate your sentiment towards them.
If you loved or liked Christianity you would praise it. If you were indifferent to Christianity you would not even think about it or comment concerning it. Your actions are demonstrably those of someone who does not like or hates Christianity.
You said: “Surely you don't want an echo chamber, do you?”
While I do not want an echo chamber where all that I hear is the sound of my own thoughts and voice, I do very much enjoy and desire the reverberation of the unity of the one true faith expressed by others who rejoice with me in the grace, mercy, and peace of our loving God. Within that unity we do challenge one another to deeper understanding and growth, even calling one another to see where we are in error that we may embrace the truth. Even challenges from one like you cause me to dig more deeply and to embrace the truth with greater reliance.
So, I do not mind if you read and comment on my entries. While I will not always welcome your comments, and not always respond to them, I will read them and be moved by them to a deeper appreciation for both what you rightly acknowledge as well as for what you are lacking.
Dear Canadian,
Regarding moral choices, you changed the focus when you said:
“My comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful. However, I do believe morals were different 1000+ years ago, than they are now.”
Our discussion was regarding moral choices, not morality. While the moral choices that people face today may be regarding use of an automobile or rocketship rather than a buggy or chariot, the choices that they face have not changed.
Morality is the standards that people hold regarding what guides their approach to these choices. And ultimately, these various standards have not changed, either. The various declared or manifested moralities of today were known thousands of years ago as well. People have always mixed and matched certain points of these moralities, but the basic sets of standards are the same today.
You said: “The people who wrote the Bible struggled with morals.”
Once again you display your disrespect and hatred for the Christian faith, for this most certainly is not what the Bible declares. The men who wrote the Bible all declare the same morality and profess that this is the morality given by the Holy Spirit. But since you reject the Holy Spirit and morality as a gift from God declared in the Scriptures, all of which point to Christ, you cannot allow the Bible to say what it says. You always change it to what you say that it says and is. You change it to your own atheism context.
You said: “But it was a very different world back then. Cultures were different. To try an recreate these cultural norms in todays world is absurd.”
Here you change the truth to what you want it to be. While every ethnicity has idiosyncracies, they all have the same foundations. Only one has truly stood apart from the rest. Only one held to one God who acts on behalf of His people, promising to sacrifice Himself to redeem them, and establishing a code for a life of worship that would keep them ever looking to the hope of the fulfillment of that promise. All of the other cultures of the world reflect reliance upon one’s own actions as self-justification and redemption. The codes of these cultures all center upon self-improvement and preservation of their society and people. Only the Christian faith, which was the faith of Old Testament Israel, presents this entirely other mindset. The other cultures, which are really only one primary mindset, continually manifest themselves even today.
You said: “If you were to transport them here today, they would take one look at your house, car etc and think YOU were a God.”
If I were able to do this, I would be God.
You said: “Medicine was just beginning.”
The knowledge of healing arts or use of nutrition and other things is not at all new, nor are today’s medical practices necessarily more effective. Perhaps you know of the House of Medici, but if not, you should study where medicine had its beginnings. Then you will also understand the atrocities of the papacy. As far as the insanity that you mention, no such actions are given in the Bible, nor did anyone truly trusting in God’s means of grace ever do such things. Never. Only those who did not trust in God’s means of grace acted thus, and by their own imagined and fabricated faiths. The Bible has declared the means by which demons and their dreadful effects are driven out, the means of grace. Where these are not used in accord with the true faith, people resort to their own inventions, such as the ones that you mentioned. But where they are used as they are ordained, they do effect what God promises. And yes, even what has been mislabeled as mental disorders today are still healed when addressed for what they really are, spiritual disorders. These are not always direct demonic possessions, and they were not all said to be in what are often called Biblical times. But the Word of God, Jesus, can heal them all.
It would be pointless to you to name any of the ones I have observed, for you would merely rationalize them away. Besides, faith does not come through observance, rather observance comes through faith.
NA,
You make quite a few charges against me. I think I might reply to them on my blog in the coming days.
Dear Canadian,
I see that in the last couple of days you added your photograph to your profile. It is helpful to connect your face with your comments.
You are a handsome fellow. You also look like a person who is very friendly. Thanks for showing your face. :)
Dear Canadian,
I’m not sure why you would retreat to your blog to reply with what you accuse against me. You seem to be implying that I have been aggressive and unfair toward you.
I think that you should consider that I did not go to your blog and speak against you. You came here. And what approach did you take?
First you laugh or sneer at me and mock my use of the Bible. You mock me further by comparing the Bible to a play and an extended poem. Both of these have one human author. The Bible is written over a period of thousands of years by multiple authors who all profess the same focus and the same divine guidance.
Then you mock me again, attacking the foundation of my life, my great comfort for my soul, refusing to allow that the sects that claim to be Christian are not really Christian, but sects that have splintered off into their own ways.
How do you react to “Christians” who act this way toward you?
Do you not call them hateful? Do you not call them attackers? Do you not call them unfair?
Do you not distance yourself from certain atheists and expect that people not count you among them? Do you not insist that such people do not represent you?
Do you not insist that non atheists allow you to explain what you believe to be true without being defined by others?
Somehow you imagine that you have acted kindly and fairly to me and do not even seem to acknowledge your aggression against me and my life. You seem to imagine that your mocking me is somehow innocent and that my call of foul is an act of aggression against you.
You insist on counting people who drilled holes in people’s skulls to let the demons out as following what the Bible teaches. But today’s AMA licenced and approved doctors DO practice this. They DO drill holes in people’s skulls to give them relief from their conditions. AMA doctors also use electro convulsive treatments on people AGAINST THEIR WILLS, to SAVE them from such things as clinical depression. I actually was asked by a lady to stop a group of psychiatrists from administering ECTs to her against her will. They actually said that ECTs were her only salvation. They insisted that she would die without them.
The Bible does not promote such treatment of people. Those who turn from the Lord to their own reason devise these horrible and devilish treatments. It matters not whether they claim the name of Christian if they choose ways contrary to the Word. No one adhering to the doctrine of the Scriptures ever called a person with a mental deficiency or emotional disorder a SPAWN of Satan. The Scriptures speak of these as afflictions of demons and also identify some who are demon possessed, but they are not called the spawn of Satan. Why do you insist on calling such things Christian doctrine and practice? Christ called the scribes and pharisees and those who refused to hear the grace of God as the children of the devil.
I don’t know why you enjoyed going to church as a child. I don’t know what you believed then. I do know that you do not today hear the true doctrine of the Bible, the faith of Jesus declared in the Bible. I know that you do not acknowledge the God of the Bible as the God of grace, mercy, and peace and that you do not allow my preaching of him to be genuine and true. You openly mock it and do not hear it at all. You limit religion to a teaching of morals, and thus you do not hear what I actually proclaim. Rather you impose upon me the definition of a moralist and thereby hear nothing else. Those few who do hear what I proclaim, and who themselves believe and profess the same, receive something that you are unable even to imagine. I do earnestly desire that you would hear.
It would be a delight to embrace you as a brother. For now it seems that we must settle for being estranged relations.
A point of clarification:
more than a thousand is thousands, but for the sake of clarity I should have said that the Bible was written over a period of centuries, about 15 of them.
Dear NA,
It isn't that I want to retreat to my blog. It's just easier to respond. You said a lot (which I appreciate) but it would take me a very long time to respond to it all.
Here's a few points I'd like to address though:
You said: "Do you not distance yourself from certain atheists and expect that people not count you among them? Do you not insist that such people do not represent you?"
Not really, because atheism isn't a religion. It has no dogma attached to it. It has no doctrine that I must fuddle through trying to cherry pick the good parts from - or the bad, depending on my particular outlook.
You admit that the Bible was written by several different people, over several hundreds of years. That doesn't add to how reliable it is, it takes away from it. It's also been translated several times, pieces have been left out to suit the political-religious who put it together in the first place.
You said: "You insist on counting people who drilled holes in people’s skulls to let the demons out as following what the Bible teaches. But today’s AMA licenced and approved doctors DO practice this. They DO drill holes in people’s skulls to give them relief from their conditions."
That's a whole different thing and you know it. That's to relieve pressure in the skull. Not to release a supernatural demon from someones head.
You said: "Christ called the scribes and pharisees and those who refused to hear the grace of God as the children of the devil."
I rest my case. It's just one more example of people being vilified as demon children.
You said: "I don’t know why you enjoyed going to church as a child. I don’t know what you believed then."
I enjoyed the community aspects of church.
I believed much as you do. After all, I was told by the authority figures in my life that Jesus was real and I believed them, as most kids were.
It wasn't till a bit later when I started to question. Noahs Ark was a big one, since it features a story about a guy building a gigantic boat and a God that killed almost everything on the planet, including women, children etc.
You said: "First you laugh or sneer at me and mock my use of the Bible. You mock me further by comparing the Bible to a play and an extended poem."
Then choose your choice of ancient literature. Maybe another religious one. The point remains the same.
You often mistake my comments as being 'hateful'. I think you use that as a shield so that you can use the victim card. I do not hate Christians. I think there are some good things in the Bible. I also think there is loads of bad things as well. After all, it was written by men. As Christians are so fond of pointing out, no man is perfect. The Bible is a reflection of its time.
It's time to move on from that time in my opinion.
Post a Comment